scholarly journals Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Instability: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 3685-3693
Author(s):  
Peng Yin ◽  
Yi Ding ◽  
Lijin Zhou ◽  
Chunyang Xu ◽  
Haifeng Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoxin Fan ◽  
Xinbo Wu ◽  
Shunzhi Yu ◽  
Qi Sun ◽  
Xiaofei Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

The aim of this study was to directly compare the clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in three-level lumbar spinal stenosis. This retrospective study involved a total of 60 patients with three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent MIS-TLIF or PLIF from January 2010 to February 2012. Back and leg visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scale were used to assess the pain, disability, and health status before surgery and postoperatively. In addition, the operating time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were also recorded. There were no significant differences in back VAS, leg VAS, ODI, SF-36, fusion condition, and complications at 12-month follow-up between the two groups (P>0.05). However, significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay were observed in MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). Moreover, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS than those in PLIF group at 6-month follow-up (P<0.05). Compared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF might be a prior option because of noninferior efficacy as well as merits of less blood loss and quicker recovery in treating three-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

scholarly journals S-line as Predictor of Clinical Outcome for Patients Undergone Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilin Lu ◽  
Jian Zhu ◽  
Xi Luo ◽  
Kaiqiang Sun ◽  
Jingchuan Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background: Some have speculated that LSTV has an impact on lumbar curve. A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate S-line as predictor of clinical outcome for patients undergone transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods: 126 patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were enrolled. S-line stands for the connecting line between the highest points of the iliac crests on both sides. The patients were divided into two groups according to the position of S-line, S-line (-) group included patients whose S-line were between L4 and L5, and S-line (+) group included patients whose S-line is above or below this range, which were divided into two subgroups. Their pre-operative imaging data about sagittal alignment were collected, including lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). Clinical outcomes were measured using Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) before the surgery and postoperatively. The correlation of S-line and clinical outcomes, as well as sagittal alignment and clinical outcomes, were analyzed.Results: LL, SS, PI, PT and PI minus(-) LL of S-line (-) group were (45.39°±12.68°), (30.27°±10.55°), (43.32°±12.22°), (13.05°±6.52°), (-2.07°±8.20°), respectively, and those parameters of S-line (+) group were (40.29±14.92), (35.70°±14.09°), (52.59°±17.07°), (16.89°±8.24°), (12.30°±9.98°), respectively. Significant difference were seen in the above parameters between S-line (-) and S-line (+) group. For S-line (-) and S-line (+) group, post-operative JOA score were (22.39±2.12), (20.26±2.46), post-operative VAS were (2.07±0.88), (3.14±1.47), the post-operative ODI were (8.36±3.28), (11.82±3.32), the improvement rate is (0.61±0.13), (0.55±0.15), Significant differences of those parameters are seen between S-line (-) group and S-line (+) group.Conclusion: S-line is a reliable predictor of clinical outcome for patients undergone transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.

scholarly journals Unilateral Tubular Approach for Bilateral Laminotomy vs Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Lv ◽  
Minjie Hu ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Shiqi Bi
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract The authors have withdrawn this preprint due to author disagreement.

scholarly journals Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Report of Seven Cases with 12-Month Follow-Up

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jincai Yang ◽  
Chang Liu ◽  
Yong Hai ◽  
Peng Yin ◽  
Lijin Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Bone Trabeculae ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Purpose. The objective of this study was to investigate the preliminary effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods. From September 2016 to June 2017, a series of seven patients consisting of six females and one male with an average age of 55.25 years (range 43–77 years) who were diagnosed with LSS were involved in this study. All patients were treated by PE-TLIF. During perioperative and follow-up period, demographic data, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria were evaluated and perioperative complications were documented. Results. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months, with an average follow-up time of 15 (range 12-21) months. The mean VAS of back pain was 7.43 (range 6-8) preoperatively and 0.86 (range 0-2) at the final follow-up. The mean VAS of leg pain was 6.14 (range 4-9) preoperatively and 0.71 (range 0-1) at the final follow-up. The mean ODI was 53.57% (range 38%-63%) preoperatively and 15.57% (range 5%-26%) at the final follow-up. In three-month follow-up, continuous bone trabeculae bridging between intervertebral bodies was seen in 3 cases, and the remaining 4 cases could identify continuous bone trabeculae bridging at 6-month follow-up, reaching the standard of spinal intervertebral fusion. At the final follow-up, 4 patients were rated as excellent (4/7) and 3 patients were rated as good (3/7) according to the modified MacNab criteria. Conclusions. Our study suggested that percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion could acquire satisfactory treatment effects for the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, even for the patient who could not afford general anesthesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document